just got a phone call from one of my friends telling me of a bill being run thru the state of oregon as senate bill 71 that will make it illegal to fly a drone or rc aircraft plane or heli with any sort of camera on board scary times people more rights being infringed we as hobbiests need to band together to stop our rights from being taken before it is to late http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/me...b0071.intro.pdf

I just received the feb. 11 edition of time magazine. The cover story: "Rise of the drones" with a picture of military drone flying low over a house. I have a feeling that this will definitely spark some more opposition to most forms of flying with a camera pointed towards the ground. Not happy...

Here's a group I have been involved with reply to them via AUVSI etc...

Background

LC1387 and LC0907 have been proposed to regulate “drones” in the State of Oregon. The bills appear to have been drafted without any understanding of the industry that already exists in Oregon to support Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), often called “drones” in the press. Nor do the bills seem to have any understanding of the growth potential for UAVs/UAS, particularly in new civilian applications. These bills, or similar legislation, could seriously hamper the development of this industry in Oregon, with disproportionately negative impact on rural communities where testing of these vehicles could occur.

Facts:
• The total U.S. UAS market is expected to nearly double in the next decade; globally, expenditures will grow from $6.6 to $11.4 billion. The general robotics market will grow to $19.5 billion by 20124.
• 81 Oregon-based businesses are currently engaged in UAS and more than 100 other aerospace companies do related work.
• More than 650 companies in Oregon can directly use or benefit from UAS applications.
• Just as the first decades of manned flight and satellite systems were military, but the main uses were ultimately civilian, the UAS market is shifting from military to civilian uses and poised for unprecedented growth.
• Growth in the industry will expand existing Oregon firms and bring new mid- and small-sized companies to the State.
• UAS positions pay very well, with starting salaries of $55,000 per year vs. an average Oregon wage of $43,091 (2011).
• Conservative projections involving reasonable growth in the industry put the benefit for Oregon after seven years at 1,400 new jobs, $120 million in new taxable payroll, and $225 million in new total economic value.

The current bills could hamstring growth in Oregon. They are significantly lacking in major respects:

• Technically, a “drone” is an aerial vehicle towed behind another aircraft. Only the press uses the word “drone” because of its connotation. Any legislation should use the correct FAA terminology and FAA definitions. See the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 for definitions.

• There is no “Airspace of Oregon” separate from federally regulated airspace. All airspace is under federal oversight, hence the name “National Airspace System.” Even tall buildings, towers, and trees on private property are subject to federal regulation if they interfere with flight safety. State efforts to regulate flight almost certainly conflict with federal powers.

• The federal government is already considering at least one major bill (HR 6676) to provide privacy protections related to UAVs/UAS, and federal law would take precedence.

• It is unclear why the state needs to act in advance of the federal government, as the current federal legislation is more comprehensive—not to mention more thoughtful. Nor is there any “emergency” related to enactment. “Free flight” of UAVs is several years away—if it is ever allowed by the FAA. All current flights are heavily restricted.

• In trying to protect privacy freedoms, the bill seeks to severely restrict another freedom—the freedom of the sky. The sky has been considered “public space” since the first plane flew in 1903. Neither the government nor individuals own the sky above their land; the federal government regulates flight strictly to ensure safety.

• It is of equal importance to safeguard the rights of citizens who choose to fly UAVs for personal or commercial purposes as it is to protect citizens from privacy invasion. Virtually every conceivable use of UAVs has benefits to citizens and the state; and “spying” by government or private individuals in virtually all cases can be much more easily accomplished by means other than flying craft, whether manned or unmanned.

• Would the state require a manned aircraft to obtain permission to fly over every piece of private property along its flight path, for example from Portland to Eugene? How would this even be possible? Why would such permission be required of a vehicle in which the pilot is controlling the aircraft from the ground rather than from in the cockpit?

• The definition of “drone” includes anything that flies with any type of camera and criminalizes this flight without a state or federal license off one’s own property. Is every child that flies his $39 toy UAV with a camera on the street violating criminal law?

• The bill would criminalize routine surveying—mapping that the state itself is already doing with manned aircraft. (And could save millions of dollars in doing, if it used UAVs.)

• The bill fails to distinguish between toy aircraft flown by children, model aircraft and rockets flown by hobbyists, and “drones.” The bill criminalizes activities that have been going safely on for decades. The bill would turn rocket-flying children, high school and college science students, and model airplane enthusiasts into felons.

• In fact, LC1387 is so broadly drawn that it would regulate satellites overflying the state and criminalize any reconnaissance or mapping they are performing!

• The bills criminalize activities—e.g., taking photos or other kinds of images—that are legal in manned aircraft and are legal in other modes of transportation—e.g., from public spaces on water and on land.

• Individuals have the right to fly—either from within the cockpit or remotely—without government interference, provided they are not a safety hazard. And they are free to carry on any activities that are legal on the ground or on water, including photography or similar activities.

• The registration requirement would create an enormous bureaucracy covering what would be 95-plus percent toy and model vehicles.

• The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have the right to privacy only from technology that is not available to the average citizen; e.g., thermal imaging systems that can penetrate walls. This bill would criminalize all kinds of imaging activities from UAVs that are legal, for example, from parked cars or from other public areas.

Several specifics from the Bills:
(2) “Drone” means an unmanned flying machine that is capable of:
(a) Capturing images of objects or people on the ground or in the air;
(b) Intercepting communications on the ground or in the air; or
(c) Firing a bullet or other projectile.

1. Several model airplane models have cameras on them. This is becoming a popular trend in the sport.
2. All model airplanes have communications on them, some quite sophisticated.
3. Many folks like to drop dummy bombs or parachute small plastic troops from their model airplanes (a felony under this bill).

No better time than the present to band together and start doing something about things like this. Going to try and start generating some buzz about this. Get a group of forward thinkers together to work with the FAA, AMA, and other bodies to help protect the rights of Amateur drone hobbyists in the United States. Watch that site for more info to come.

Remotely Piloted Aircraft. We will always have a human in the loop some way. We will let them go on their own for a little while, but we humans tend to be a suspicious lot and expect our machines to go tottering off in another direction while we're not looking. There will always be a human in the loop.

Remotely Piloted Aircraft. We will always have a human in the loop some way. We will let them go on their own for a little while, but we humans tend to be a suspicious lot and expect our machines to go tottering off in another direction while we're not looking. There will always be a human in the loop.

Good point. Alternatively, one could simply call them: Remotely Controlled Model Aircrafts, (R/C models), since that is what they really are.

Good point. Alternatively, one could simply call them: Remotely Controlled Model Aircrafts, (R/C models), since that is what they really are.

Actually, my aircraft is a model of nothing, since there is nothing "full sized" that is even remotely resembled by it. It ("they" actually, since I have more than one) are aircraft in their own rights, and actually are, full sized aircraft. Small, yes. Capable, yes. Model, No.

But under the FAA rules in the aircraft classification, it would "Fly as a Model".

There needs to be a new classification for RPV, UAV, Aerial Robots, etc.... My Aircraft is not a model, though it flies under that classification according to the FAA.

This debate went on ad nauseum about 5 or 6 years ago. Technically they are all "vehicles", so RPV would fit everything. But "they" argued, more accurately If it flies it's an "aircraft", if it rolls, slides, slithers, or slinks it is a "ground" vehicle (UGV, RPGV, etc.), if it's under water it's underwater (UUV, AUV, etc). Technically, none of them are "autonomous" - they can't "think" about where they need to go, they need some one to tell them. But wait, it's not just about the vehicle, it's a complete "system" so you must call it an "unmanned autonomous SYSTEM (UAS) that covers them all! You can split hairs until the cows come home on this one but NO ONE has ever challenged any definition in a court of law to set a precedent.